Jump to content

Will Sansar replace Second Life ?


You are about to reply to a thread that has been inactive for 1692 days.

Please take a moment to consider if this thread is worth bumping.

Recommended Posts


Vivienne Schell wrote:

Question is where LL will go to: EIther another high tech 3D sightseeing show for the dedicated few, another business focused 3D environment or another more Second Life like "world"-like, social but G-rated environment, or another platform for game developers of any kind. Hard to tell. But none of these models have the potential to replace Second Life.


i think is not either/or. Is a all these things thing with other things in the mix as well

in this sense SL is all of these things as well. The question for Sansar is can/will all of these things be easier to do on the platform 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 120
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Second Life = Legos Sansar = Makerbot   That's not quite right tho ... Second Life is to Woodstock like Sansar is to Super Bowl LI half time show.   Second Life is a snow day.  We all get to pla


Theresa Tennyson wrote:

Sansar won't have fixed "servers" - they'll use on-demand virtual machines on the Amazon cloud system. The idea of the "server" is what makes Second Life unscalable. A stand-alone virtual home - even one that occupies kilometers of "space" - that's visitable by a limited number of people at a time will have very little fixed overhead.


 

Oh, did Ebbe tell you that? Anyways. Assets are assets, regardless where they get stored. And assets need storage, regardless if on a cloud or elsewhere. And storage costs money. I doubt that something like a "private exhibition app" which includes extremely complex 3d models, high res textures and a complex database enabling virtual trade and and and can compete with the simple, but cheap and effective do-it-yourself 2D competition (if competing on that terrain is what LL wants to achieve).

The other question is: Who needs a continet for planting a log cabin?

And even if Sansar will cannibalise Second Life to a certain degree, by attracting the people who pay for a G-rated homestead for some reasons now: These "immigrants" alone will never ever justify the investments into the Sansar project.

Link to post
Share on other sites


wherorangi wrote:


Vivienne Schell wrote:

Question is where LL will go to: EIther another high tech 3D sightseeing show for the dedicated few, another business focused 3D environment or another more Second Life like "world"-like, social but G-rated environment, or another platform for game developers of any kind. Hard to tell. But none of these models have the potential to replace Second Life.


i think is not either/or. Is a all these things thing with other things in the mix as well

in this sense SL is all of these things as well. The question for Sansar is can/will all of these things be easier to do on the platform 

SL is none of the above, in fact. SL is an 18+ virtual "world" model with social and sandbox character. And that´s why Second Life works in very first place and that´s why no one but Linden Lab ever got something like Second Life or similar to Second Life working - even after 12 years.

Concluding from what was published so far Sansar is not planned to be a "world" at all, but just a "platform" for whatever. And before you come up with "but everyone can create a world on that platform" : It takes much more than software and hardware to create a working world. Much, much more. And I find it overly optimistic to expect that "someone" will be able to create a working, commercially successful, Second Life like "world" within the next ten years, even if Linden Lab delivers all the tools for such a project.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Silly parsing of pixels.

In Silicon Valley, "many" means one or two. 

It doesn't matter if Ebbe is late with his beta start dates.

The reality is that in the business world that the Lindens live in, a year or two is "many". Just ask all the start-ups that died this year that were the ne plus ultra 2 years ago.

Remember Zing, "photo storage for life"?

Link to post
Share on other sites


wherorangi wrote:


ChinRey wrote:

The business related factors are more than enough reason why it's unlikely there'll ever be a "Second Life within Sansar" anyway. You'd have to be clinically insane to try to create something like that on a platform you don't control yourself.

no more crazy than the Chung lands empire is, or any other of the big SL estates. Like Red Hearts or USS etc

Sansar doesn't seem like the place for land barons because there are no regions or parcels in an experience and changing the experience is an off-line activity. You edit it, the experience's content is run through an optimizer (Penny will be happy about that), then it's published. Once it's published people in the experience can see it. Say you make a region-sized experience, mark off sections, then rent those sections out. The land baron (experience owner) would have to give editing permissions to each tenant, who might then be able to change *anything* in that experience. That would be too dangerous.

The land baron could set up residential or commercial experiences and rent them out, but potential customers could just get an experience from LL then buy an experience from the Marketplace to load into their experience. (Yeah, I'm making fun of LL for calling the worlds 'experiences' then saying they want creators to build experiences that would be sold on the Marketplace. One is the simulator, the other is the content.)

The off-line editing is what's killed my interest in Sansar. No sandboxes, no builds done by several people working together, and having a community where people could both see each other and decorate their own spaces might not be feasible.

Disclaimer: I'm basing this on what I've read from LL, meaning Ebbe. CEOs tend to over-promise and get details horribly wrong. I wish there was more information from the developers themselves, but at least we should get a chance to find out for ourselves within the next 6 months.

ETA: Removed an extraneous word.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Parhelion Palou wrote:

You edit it, the experience's content is run through an optimizer (Penny will be happy about that), then it's published.

Digression: I wonder if they have ever heard of GIGO. Could be fatal for the entire Sansar project if they haven't taken that into account there.

Link to post
Share on other sites


Parhelion Palou wrote:


land barons

Disclaimer: I'm basing this on what I've read from LL, meaning Ebbe. CEOs tend to over-promise and get details horribly wrong. I wish there was more information from the developers themselves, but at least we should get a chance to find out for ourselves within the next 6 months.

yes he (Ebbe) has said a number of contradictory things which even with the help of tea leaves and rune sticks, is pretty hard to work out what it is he is projecting

like you right about what we hear about how experiences are created. He (Ebbe) says stuff like we cant create stuff in the runtime, and then he says stuff like: we will be able to mount stuff in the runtime

if we can mount stuff then we half way to SL-like parcels. Half way meaning in the same way that SL mesh objects can be mounted in the runtime yet not created in the viewer

+

for land barons the zillion dollar question is that if we can mount stuff. then will it also be possible to partition a experience space ? If so then am pretty sure the barons be into this

like be able to build continents, cities, space stations, etc and then partition it and tenants be able to mount their stuff in the rented partitions

+

if we cant mount in the runtime. and we cant partition our own runtimes then I dont get what the attraction of Sansar would be at all, other than playing games, hanging out at canned clubs and events, etc. which I can do elsewhere anyways

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites


Prokofy Neva wrote:

Silly parsing of pixels.

In Silicon Valley, "many" means one or two. 

It doesn't matter if Ebbe is late with his beta start dates.

The reality is that in the business world that the Lindens live in, a year or two is "many". Just ask all the start-ups that died this year that were the ne plus ultra 2 years ago.

Remember Zing, "photo storage for life"?

Don't be so silly. The word 'many' always implies significantly more than two, no matter where it is said.

But, then, you're you, and you can't help being objectionable, can you? We all know that.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Vivienne Schell wrote:

Concluding from what was published so far Sansar is not planned to be a "world" at all, but just a "platform" for whatever. And before you come up with "but everyone can create a world on that platform" :
It takes much more than software and hardware to create a working world.
Much, much more. And I find it overly optimistic to expect that "someone" will be able to create a working, commercially successful, Second Life like "world" within the next ten years, even if Linden Lab delivers all the tools for such a project.

Yeah, especially the part I bolded. One observation: The major competitive advantage LL has, the one place where they have corporate knowledge that constitutes a serious barrier to entry, is experience operating a virtual world for profit. It may be that the Lab is now in a position to offer their new, Sansar customers tools for profitable virtual world operation. Or they may be entering a market where they have no particular advantage at all. I guess we'll find out.

Link to post
Share on other sites


Vivienne Schell wrote:


Theresa Tennyson wrote:

Sansar won't have fixed "servers" - they'll use on-demand virtual machines on the Amazon cloud system. The idea of the "server" is what makes Second Life unscalable. A stand-alone virtual home - even one that occupies kilometers of "space" - that's visitable by a limited number of people at a time will have very little fixed overhead.

 

Oh, did Ebbe tell you that? Anyways. Assets are assets, regardless where they get stored. And assets need storage, regardless if on a cloud or elsewhere. And storage costs money. I doubt that something like a "private exhibition app" which includes extremely complex 3d models, high res textures and a complex database enabling virtual trade and and and can compete with the simple, but cheap and effective do-it-yourself 2D competition (if competing on that terrain is what LL wants to achieve).

The other question is: Who needs a continet for planting a log cabin?

And even if Sansar will cannibalise Second Life to a certain degree, by attracting the people who pay for a G-rated homestead for some reasons now: These "immigrants" alone will never ever justify the investments into the Sansar project.

No, Amazon told me that:

https://aws.amazon.com/solutions/case-studies/linden-lab/

Assets do indeed need storage - for example, there are hundreds of thousands of Second Life accounts that have inventories which need to be stored and tracked.

And Linden Lab doesn't feel the need to charge anything for the inventories of all the hundreds of thousands of free accounts out there.

The Second Life servers have basically three jobs:

1) They constantly track and simulate the physical world of Second Life because with the way Second Life is built, the physical world can change at any time. In Sansar the physical world only changes unpredictably when deliberately "baked" by the experience owner so there's no need for the constant tracking.

2) They govern the interactions of avatars in this world. If there's only a small number of avatars interacting with a fixed world there's so little work involved in this it can easily be done on the client or peer-to-peer.

3) They handle communication between the many small connected patches of physical space in Second Life. If the patches are large and less connected, the server's out of a job.

And really, why have a log cabin when you can have a continent for the same price? (G-rated? Pfaugh. Since the experiences will be independently branded instead of being part of a monolithic thing called Sansar, Linden Lab really won't care what you do on your land unless it's something real-world illegal.)

Link to post
Share on other sites


wherorangi wrote:


Parhelion Palou wrote:


land barons

Disclaimer: I'm basing this on what I've read from LL, meaning Ebbe. CEOs tend to over-promise and get details horribly wrong. I wish there was more information from the developers themselves, but at least we should get a chance to find out for ourselves within the next 6 months.

yes he (Ebbe) has said a number of contradictory things which even with the help of tea leaves and rune sticks, is pretty hard to work out what it is he is projecting

like you right about what we hear about how experiences are created. He (Ebbe) says stuff like we cant create stuff in the runtime, and then he says stuff like: we will be able to mount stuff in the runtime

if we can mount stuff then we half way to SL-like parcels. Half way meaning in the same way that SL mesh objects can be mounted in the runtime yet not created in the viewer

+

for land barons the zillion dollar question is that if we can mount stuff. then will it also be possible to partition a experience space ? If so then am pretty sure the barons be into this

like be able to build continents, cities, space stations, etc and then partition it and tenants be able to mount their stuff in the rented partitions

+

if we cant mount in the runtime. and we cant partition our own runtimes then I dont get what the attraction of Sansar would be at all, other than playing games, hanging out at canned clubs and events, etc. which I can do elsewhere anyways

 

I've been wondering how Sansar will handle vehicles (as shown in an early video) given the optimization requirement. If you wanted to have a vehicle available but not present in-world (you click on something to mount/rez it), does that vehicle have to be part of the content that is optimized off-line for that particular world? If someone could bring in content from elsewhere and mount it, the optimization for the world might be degraded even if the new content is optimized. One vehicle may be fine for the experience, but thirty vehicles might be too many. So far I've been assuming that anything that can be rezzed/mounted in the world is already part of that world. If that's the case there's nothing in Sansar for the land barons.

I believe LL's vision for Sansar was truly all about VR goggles. That it could be used without them was just a bonus. They're hoping companies who want to get in on the VR goggle bandwagon will use Sansar as an easy way to create an experience, either by buying one from the Marketplace & hiring someone to plaster the company's name all over it or by hiring a group to build a custom one. Those experiences will be walled gardens -- only accessible via the company's website, and primarily used for advertising. That's LL's target market, and rightly so. A company could drop $10K on a Sansar ad campaign without a second thought. How many of us could do that?

I expect the VR goggle hype wave to pass fairly quickly (a couple of years max), so where will Sansar be then?

Link to post
Share on other sites


Parhelion Palou wrote:


wherorangi wrote:


Parhelion Palou wrote:


land barons

Disclaimer: I'm basing this on what I've read from LL, meaning Ebbe. CEOs tend to over-promise and get details horribly wrong. I wish there was more information from the developers themselves, but at least we should get a chance to find out for ourselves within the next 6 months.

yes he (Ebbe) has said a number of contradictory things which even with the help of tea leaves and rune sticks, is pretty hard to work out what it is he is projecting

like you right about what we hear about how experiences are created. He (Ebbe) says stuff like we cant create stuff in the runtime, and then he says stuff like: we will be able to mount stuff in the runtime

if we can mount stuff then we half way to SL-like parcels. Half way meaning in the same way that SL mesh objects can be mounted in the runtime yet not created in the viewer

+

for land barons the zillion dollar question is that if we can mount stuff. then will it also be possible to partition a experience space ? If so then am pretty sure the barons be into this

like be able to build continents, cities, space stations, etc and then partition it and tenants be able to mount their stuff in the rented partitions

+

if we cant mount in the runtime. and we cant partition our own runtimes then I dont get what the attraction of Sansar would be at all, other than playing games, hanging out at canned clubs and events, etc. which I can do elsewhere anyways

 

I've been wondering how Sansar will handle vehicles (as shown in an early video) given the optimization requirement. If you wanted to have a vehicle available but not present in-world
(you click on something to mount/rez it)
, does that vehicle have to be part of the content that is optimized off-line for that particular world? If someone could bring in content from elsewhere and mount it, the optimization for the world might be degraded even if the new content is optimized. One vehicle may be fine for the experience, but thirty vehicles might be too many. So far I've been assuming that anything that can be rezzed/mounted in the world is already part of that world. If that's the case there's nothing in Sansar for the land barons.


Why should you need to "rezz" and "mount" a vehicle? That's the way Second Life simulates vehicles but that's by no means the only way to do so. Why not just wear it? You'll have a far more accurate and simple way to simulate the physics of a moving vehicle if it's considered part of the avatar instead of an in-world object. One of the problems with Second Life vehicle region crossings is the avatar and vehicle are simulated separately and sometimes you literally "collide" with the vehicle you're supposedly sitting in. 

So many of these Sansar threads reminds me of the movie Chicken Run: "Babs, there is no farmer!"  People think things have to be done certain ways because Second Life does them that way, but Second Life does things the way it does because it was decided that it was the best way to do it in 2003 for a "world" that in many ways is quite different from how Second Life eventually developed, even if only looking at its first few years of existence.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The vehicle was just one possibility ... the bigger issue is whether it will be possible for a user to add *anything* to an experience. If everything that can be in the experience has to be part of the experience's content when optimized off-line, then a renter couldn't decorate a house with their own things. 

I was using rez/mount because we rez things in SL but apparently in Sansar we'll mount them.

Region crossings aren't an issue in Sansar because there aren't any regions.

Link to post
Share on other sites


Parhelion Palou wrote:

The vehicle was just one possibility ... the bigger issue is whether it will be possible for a user to add *anything* to an experience. If everything that can be in the experience has to be part of the experience's content when optimized off-line, then a renter couldn't decorate a house with their own things. 

I was using rez/mount because we rez things in SL but apparently in Sansar we'll mount them.

Region crossings aren't an issue in Sansar because there aren't any regions.

Everything I've heard has been pretty clear that you'll be able to add new things like furniture, plants, etc. to your experience in world, only they won't show up to anyone else until the experience is "baked."

As far as renting, it shouldn't be necessary. For instance, there could be a public area and then a variety of separate experiences linked to it. The ability to link your house to the surrounding land might have to be paid for but it wouldn't be "someone else's land" you're building on.   It should be possible for someone to have complete control over their house and have it in the middle of "land" owned by someone else that they could interact with but not change. It would be similar to how The Sims 4 sets up neighborhoods.

Here's a simple example - a developer builds a city neighborhood with parks, stores, events, etc. They also build some multi-story apartment buildings. If a visitor likes the city, they could buy an "apartment" - actually a separate experience. The "tenant" would step into an "elevator" in the building in the main city and step out into their own separate place which they have complete control over. When the tenant wants to experience the city they just step back into the elevator. A "five story brownstone" could have a thousand apartments like this linked to it and the city owner wouldn't have any expenses related to them and they wouldn't use any of the "city's" resources. A nominal "rent" for connection rights would be all the city owner would need to turn a profit on the apartments as time went on. Meanwhile, since the apartments are small experiences for few people, the tenants and the Lab would have very low recurring expenses for the apartments themselves. If there was a disagreement between the "city" owner and the tenant the city owner could ban the resident from the "city" but the banned resident could still be able to keep the "apartment."

Link to post
Share on other sites


Theresa Tennyson wrote:


Vivienne Schell wrote:


Theresa Tennyson wrote:

Sansar won't have fixed "servers" - they'll use on-demand virtual machines on the Amazon cloud system. The idea of the "server" is what makes Second Life unscalable. A stand-alone virtual home - even one that occupies kilometers of "space" - that's visitable by a limited number of people at a time will have very little fixed overhead.

 

Oh, did Ebbe tell you that? Anyways. Assets are assets, regardless where they get stored. And assets need storage, regardless if on a cloud or elsewhere. And storage costs money. I doubt that something like a "private exhibition app" which includes extremely complex 3d models, high res textures and a complex database enabling virtual trade and and and can compete with the simple, but cheap and effective do-it-yourself 2D competition (if competing on that terrain is what LL wants to achieve).

The other question is: Who needs a continet for planting a log cabin?

And even if Sansar will cannibalise Second Life to a certain degree, by attracting the people who pay for a G-rated homestead for some reasons now: These "immigrants" alone will never ever justify the investments into the Sansar project.

No, Amazon told me that:

Assets do indeed need storage - for example, there are hundreds of thousands of Second Life accounts that have inventories which need to be stored and tracked.

And Linden Lab
doesn't feel the need to charge anything
for the inventories of all the hundreds of thousands of free accounts out there.

The Second Life servers have basically three jobs:

1) They constantly track and simulate the physical world of Second Life because with the way Second Life is built, the physical world can change at any time.
In Sansar the physical world only changes unpredictably when deliberately "baked" by the experience owner so there's no need for the constant tracking.

2) They govern the interactions of avatars in this world.
If there's only a small number of avatars interacting with a fixed world there's so little work involved in this it can easily be done on the client or peer-to-peer.

3) They handle communication between the many small connected patches of physical space in Second Life.
If the patches are large and less connected, the server's out of a job.

And really, why have a log cabin when you can have a continent for the same price? (G-rated? Pfaugh. Since the experiences will be independently branded instead of being part of a monolithic thing called Sansar, Linden Lab really won't care what you do on your land unless it's something real-world illegal.)

Fine. So even if your suggestios may be right (which they are not): What happens if Project Sansar will become the thriving success Linden Lab obviously wants (and needs) to achieve?

Your 1), 2) 3) will be rendered pretty useless, cause with gazillions of users you will not match your basic suggestions on operation. And Second Life switches sims off and on on demand, anyway. So please tell me something new.

So, you would pay for a continent to plant a log cabin? Really? And yes, G-rated. One of the very few solid announcements Linden Lab officials gave to the public so far clearly states that the platform will be 13+.. Which is G-rated. Or do you really think that Linden Lab will dare to get stigmatised as virtual porn provider by the media again? Or even get connected to it again, with their new shiny platform? Dream on.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Theresa Tennyson wrote:

Why should you need to "rezz" and "mount" a vehicle? That's the way Second Life simulates vehicles but that's by no means the only way to do so. Why not just wear it? You'll have a far more accurate and simple way to simulate the physics of a moving vehicle if it's considered part of the avatar instead of an in-world object. One of the problems with Second Life vehicle region crossings is the avatar and vehicle are simulated separately and sometimes you literally "collide" with the vehicle you're supposedly sitting in. 

So many of these Sansar threads reminds me of the movie Chicken Run: "Babs, there is no farmer!"  People think things have to be done certain ways because Second Life does them that way, but Second Life does things the way it does because it was decided that it was the best way to do it in 2003 for a "world" that in many ways is quite different from how Second Life eventually developed, even if only looking at its first few years of existence.


You must be new to Second Life. There were tons of vehicles to "wear", and still are. The problem on region crossings isn´t related to THAT at all, but simply to the problem of handshaking between simulators and this includes not only physical movement, but mostly script handshakes, Try a rezzable vehicle with a superlow script count and ride it with no scripts attached over a region border and you´ll be surprised. Do the same with an overscripted attachment and you´ll probably find yourself in orbit. The problem in Second Life is that vehicles used usually are run by a sh**load of scripts, and another sh**load of scripts are running attached to the avatars. Additionally the server entered has to calculate stuff like "object and avatar complexity". But physical movement is physical movement, regardless if you bump ino something with your avi or sitting on something while bumping into it. Makes no difference.

Regarding to the "Chicken Run" statement: That´s true. But it does not help to add some technical half knowledge and some mystical suggestions to it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Theresa Tennyson wrote:

And Linden Lab doesn't feel the need to charge anything for the inventories of all the hundreds of thousands of free accounts out there.


Yeah, because they charge the not free accounts big time. For their log cabins which the free accounts enjoy. If there will be free accounts in Sansar (which is not clearly stated yet), then this method will be one of the few similarities.

Link to post
Share on other sites


Vivienne Schell wrote:


Theresa Tennyson wrote:

Why should you need to "rezz" and "mount" a vehicle? That's the way Second Life simulates vehicles but that's by no means the only way to do so. Why not just wear it? You'll have a far more accurate and simple way to simulate the physics of a moving vehicle if it's considered part of the avatar instead of an in-world object. One of the problems with Second Life vehicle region crossings is the avatar and vehicle are simulated separately and sometimes you literally "collide"
with the vehicle you're supposedly sitting in. 

So many of these Sansar threads reminds me of the movie Chicken Run: "Babs, there
is no farmer!" 
People think things have to be done certain ways because Second Life does them that way, but Second Life does things the way it does because it was decided that it was the best way to do it in 2003 for a "world" that in many ways is quite different from how Second Life eventually developed, even if only looking at its first few years of existence.

You must be new to Second Life. There were tons of vehicles to "wear", and still are. The problem on region crossings isn´t related to THAT at all, but simply to the problem of handshaking between simulators and this includes not only physical movement, but mostly script handshakes, Try a rezzable vehicle with a superlow script count and ride it with no scripts attached over a region border and you´ll be surprised. Do the same with an overscripted attachment and you´ll probably find yourself in orbit. The problem in Second Life is that vehicles used usually are run by a sh**load of scripts, and another sh**load of scripts are running attached to the avatars. Additionally the server entered has to calculate stuff like "object and avatar complexity". But physical movement is physical movement, regardless if you bump ino something with your avi or sitting on something while bumping into it. Makes no difference.

Regarding to the "Chicken Run" statement: That´s true. But it does not help to add some technical half knowledge and some mystical suggestions to it.

I own a few wearable Second Life vehicles. They aren't as popular as "rezzed" vehicles because they're limited to the avatar movement speeds and controls and the Second Life avatar can only "walk", "run", and "fly" at fixed speeds since that's how the Second Life physics routines are written. I also have many physical ("rezzed") vehicles. There are a lot of problems: note I said one of the problems of region crossings was colliding with your own avatar. Yes, some physical vehicles cross region boundaries better than others. But ideally they shouldn't have to cross regions every 256 meters at all.

I admit that your reply isn't based on technical half knowledge. It's based on the opposite of knowledge.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Eh? How come that my avi can outpace everything availabe in SL easily just by using an adequate scriptie? Speed isn´t limited by something related to the havok engine. There are no fixed "physical" speeds for avis in SL.

 Oh, can you please paste the routine you mentioned? Maybe you can prove me wrong.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Theresa Tennyson wrote:

 

And Linden Lab
doesn't feel the need to charge anything
for the inventories of all the hundreds of thousands of free accounts out there.

 

Even though I am not and have never been premium, I probably have paid more in fees to LL than most premium members.  I've owned a number of private sims over the years, even a large estate at one time, pay for uploads, marketplace fees, to say nothing of Lindex fees.  I am not alone in this.

Most residents who don't own sims or aren't creators pay fees to LL too in one form or another.  

Server space is cheap now days. It is only in SL's and therefore in LL's best interest not to charge for inventory storage. If people were charged for their inventories, you could say good bye to most members buying anything or even sticking around.  Where would SL be then?

Link to post
Share on other sites


Vivienne Schell wrote:



Fine. So even if your suggestios may be right (which they are not): What happens if Project Sansar will become the thriving success Linden Lab obviously wants (and needs) to achieve?

Your 1), 2) 3) will be rendered pretty useless, cause with gazillions of users you will not match your basic suggestions on operation. And Second Life switches sims off and on on demand, anyway. So please tell me something new.

With Second Life everything is run on a fixed-size simulator. They do not switch off sims when demand drops - the most they can do is change the simulator frame rate from 45 simulations per second to 8 simulations per second and they've only been able to do that for about three years or so. And if over about 60 people want to go to the same place? Forget about it.

Most private residences in Second Life will never have more than about 5 avatars in them at the same time. A new platform can simulate a private residence much more efficiently. (It's hard to imagine how it could simulate it less efficiently.) Meanwhile, if the "gazillions" of people all want to go to the same public place those places can be run on simulators that can spawn jillions (we're assuming a jillion is about 1/100 of a gazillion) of identical versions of that place which can spread the load and vanish when no longer needed.

Link to post
Share on other sites
You are about to reply to a thread that has been inactive for 1692 days.

Please take a moment to consider if this thread is worth bumping.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...